Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Who Is Bankrolling Mark Kirk?

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) is a major recipient of funding from prominent hawkish donors and AIPAC-aligned political action committees.

LobeLog

As many readers of this blog may know, the Sunday New York Times published a front-page, must-read article (“GOP’s Israel Support Deepens as Political Contributions Shift”) about the ever-tightening relationship between billionaire donors, like Sheldon Adelson and Paul Singer associated with the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), and key Republican politicians like Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR). This, of course, is something LobeLog has been highlighting for quite some time (see, for example, here and here) and it is gratifying that the Times now appears to be paying attention to the issue, too.

The Times focused primarily on Cotton. It mentioned Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), who has co-sponsored virtually every piece of sanctions legislation that’s been introduced in the Senate for the past four or five years, only in passing, noting that he was a “moderate from Illinois [who was] among the Republicans who offered budget amendments related to Israel last month.”

But Kirk, whose pro-Netanyahu activities and support from AIPAC-aligned political action committees is also something to which LobeLog has repeatedly drawn attention (just type his name into the Search function at the bottom right of this site), deserves more scrutiny from the Times and other mainstream media as well.

Kirk, who has never been “moderate” when it comes to Israel, has received major funding from both the biggest AIPAC-aligned PAC—NORPAC—and RJC director Singer.

According to Center for Responsive Politics data, from 2009 to 2014 Kirk received $111,585 from NorPAC and $105,950 from employees of Elliott Management, the hedge fund founded by hawkish GOP billionaire Paul Singer. Taken together, contributions by NORPAC and Elliott Management have been the single-largest source of campaign contributions to Kirk during his career as a senator.

Just how “immoderate” Kirk has acted with respect to Israel, and especially the negotiations with Iran, is illustrated by his rather intemperate remarks against U.S. diplomats who have been involved in the talks.

“Neville Chamberlain got a lot of more out of Hitler than [Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs] Wendy Sherman got out of Iran,” he said last week, just minutes after the announcement that a deal had in fact been reached. Kirk predicted that any further sanctions relief on Iran “dooms the Middle East to yet another war” and, in a comment his office clarified to Politico as referring to an Iranian nuclear test, quipped that “we all know [the deal] is going to end with a mushroom cloud somewhere near Tehran.”

It wasn’t the first time Kirk has shown outright contempt for the efforts of U.S. diplomats to rein in Iran’s nuclear program. In November 2013, Ali Gharib and I audited a private phone call between Kirk and his donors/supporters.  The senator attacked U.S. diplomats as “desperately want(ing) a New York Times article saying how great they are.”

“If I was going to run a Democratic primary I would definitely hire our current negotiating team,” Kirk said. “And that would be Kerry and Wendy [Sherman], and the president’s sole qualification for getting on this team is whether you can be a reliable partisan or not.”

In addition to Kirk and Cotton, Singer has invested heavily in organizations, including the American Enterprise Institute and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, as well as the RJC that have led the charge against the White House’s efforts to reach a diplomatic agreement over Iran’s nuclear program.

As I’ve written about in the past, Singer has also championed same-sex marriage, positioning himself as a moderate within the GOP despite his hawkishness on Iran. Although not directly addressing his advocacy on Iran-policy, The Washington Post profiled Singer’s approach to campaign contributions and highlighted his ties to Kirk in May 2013. Singer was named as one of the “behind the scenes” donors “influencing the debate more quietly.”

“He sees donors and politicians, he said, as ‘complementary forces,’ and is signaling to elected officials they will have backup if they decide to support same-sex marriage,” the Post reported, summarizing Singer’s responses in an email exchange with the newspaper.

Singer hasn’t spoken publicly about his specific views on the Iran deal, but the footprint of his philanthropy and campaign contributions, not to mention the behavior of politicians like Cotton and Kirk who have benefited from his largesse, suggests that he’s following a similar strategy in funding efforts to sabotage the White House’s Iran diplomacy.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share